It's hardly fair for a chain with a 2-cell ALS to be considered the same length as a chain with a 3-cell ALS.

Several years ago Steve Kurzhals coined the "native strong inference" term. He may have also coined the "derived strong inference" term. The single derived strong inference of an ALS may be due to 2, or 3, or 4, ... or up to 8 native strong inferences of the cells that comprise the ALS. Therefore, while the derived SIS counts for the above are the counts shown, the native SIS counts are 4, 5, 5, and 6, respectively.

This POV has a couple of advantages: 1) Whether or not someone writes an xy-chain as an als-chain, the intrinsic length remains the same, and 2) the lengths match the truth counts in XSUDO.

It's hardly fair for a chain with a 2-cell ALS to be considered the same length as a chain with a 3-cell ALS.

Several years ago Steve Kurzhals coined the "native strong inference" term. He may have also coined the "derived strong inference" term. The single derived strong inference of an ALS may be due to 2, or 3, or 4, ... or up to 8 native strong inferences of the cells that comprise the ALS. Therefore, while the derived SIS counts for the above are the counts shown, the native SIS counts are 4, 5, 5, and 6, respectively.

This POV has a couple of advantages: 1) Whether or not someone writes an xy-chain as an als-chain, the intrinsic length remains the same, and 2) the lengths match the truth counts in XSUDO.

That shows how you and I perceive things differently.

For instance, I consider an ALS to be a network that's expressed as a strong inference so that it can be placed in an AIC. Consider:

Code:

(9)r2c9 - (89=4)r1c7,r2c8

is in reality ...

(9)r2c9 - (9=8)r1c7 - (8)r2c8 \
- (9)r2c8 \
- (89=4)r2c8

I only count the strong inference shown in the AIC because counting inferences in a network doesn't make sense to me.